Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposal to remove SPIFReducedBlockDevice #12475

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 25, 2020
Merged

Proposal to remove SPIFReducedBlockDevice #12475

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 25, 2020

Conversation

VeijoPesonen
Copy link
Contributor

@VeijoPesonen VeijoPesonen commented Feb 20, 2020

Summary of changes

The blockdevice is not needed by the bootloader. Removes SPIFReducedBlockDevice fully.

Impact of changes

Applications relying to SPIFReducedBlockDevice are forced to switch to SPIFBlockDevice. This comes at a cost of ROM and RAM usage.

Migration actions required

Applications need to switch on SPIFBlockDevice

Documentation

None


Pull request type

[] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[X] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[X] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

Reviewers

@SeppoTakalo
@davidsaada - Probably knows why this BlockDevice was kept
@bulislaw


Copy link
Contributor

@davidsaada davidsaada left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't mind removing it. On the contrary - I really dislike code duplication. However, as far as I remember, reasoning behind it was the fact that the with regular SPIF driver bootloader crossed the boundary of 32KB image size. Is this not true any more? If so, I'm all for it.

@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from davidsaada and a team February 20, 2020 10:00
@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

@VeijoPesonen, thank you for your changes.
@davidsaada @ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage @ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

SeppoTakalo
SeppoTakalo previously approved these changes Feb 20, 2020
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Feb 20, 2020

Ci started meanwhile

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Feb 20, 2020

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Feb 21, 2020

This PR cannot be merged due to conflicts. Please rebase to resolve them.

@mergify mergify bot removed the needs: review label Feb 21, 2020
The driver is not needed by the bootloader anymore.
@mergify mergify bot dismissed SeppoTakalo’s stale review February 24, 2020 14:04

Pull request has been modified.

@VeijoPesonen
Copy link
Contributor Author

VeijoPesonen commented Feb 24, 2020

@SeppoTakalo rebased. Conflict was caused by a PR #12480.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Feb 24, 2020

CI started

This is removal without deprecation?

@bulislaw Please review

Copy link
Member

@bulislaw bulislaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it's not needed for bootloader than sure.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Feb 25, 2020

CI started

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Feb 25, 2020

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 732692c into ARMmbed:master Feb 25, 2020
@mergify mergify bot removed the ready for merge label Feb 25, 2020
@VeijoPesonen VeijoPesonen deleted the purge_rspif branch February 26, 2020 10:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants